Diplomacy in MTW:VI

[Floplexter]

Thinking of the ships as agents is a good analogy- thanks. I like that- brings a bit of sense to it.

I would have said that I had longer alliances than the ones they stuck with in a few cases, but without checking every year to see who is buddying up, then it's difficult to say.

RTW advises you each turn who has signed treaties, does it not?


One of the beauties of MTW that helps it maintain its longevity is the fact that you can make the game as simple or as complex as you like to match your mood.

Sometimes it's great just to batter folk.

Thanks again.

[Adrian II]

I am going to go out on a limb here, but I think the alliance system in M:TW works up to the point where you become too succesfull as a player. From then on it becomes a free for all.

Just like others, I have seen some bizarre results. The Pope will ally with the heathen Turks against the staunchly Catholic Aragonese. Or the HRE will attack you in one turn, then in the next turn it will both accept to marry your princess (and thus conclude an allaince) and cancel the alliance after 1 second because you are at war with one of its other allies that you don't even know you are at war with yet.

In other respects the diplomacy system also works up to a point. Influence and agent valour do count when you ask for ceasefires or princesses' hands. But at the end of the day it is so inconsistent that I have never bothered to calculate and keep track of my diplomatic moves and their results. About halfway through a Catholic campaign I usually have one or two allies left, the Pope being one of them if I can help it. As a non-Catholic I don't bother.

[Martok]

Diplomacy continues to be one of the major weaknesses in the Total War franchise, from Shogun all the way up to Medieval 2. Regardless of how simplistic (in the case of Shoggy and MTW) or complex it is (as in Rome and Medieval 2), the AI simply does not treat other factions in a manner that is very rational or intelligent.

'Tis the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. I would dearly love to see the diplomatic AI improved, and not just the mechanism for it.

[EatYerGreens]

It might be unfair to say this (and I apologise if this is a re-hash of a debate from yesteryear) but, to a great extent, MTW is really "Shogun set in Europe" - give or take the extras, like crusades/Jihads, ships and so on.

In other words, the factions are all diligent followers of Sun-Tzu and will pounce on any opportunity for military gain, as and when it arises (assuming an Expansionist character-type, or suitably strong motivation, like recapturing homelands, for the others).

I can't say I've tested this myself (too possessive!) but, if you wanted to break an unwanted alliance without 'loss of honour' (the "Breaking Treaty!" warning message in Shogun mentions this) and without being the one to make the first act of aggression, you could simply vacate a province at the shared border (perhaps leaving a minimal castle garrison) and simply wait.

Draw them in with prospect of gain. - Sun Tzu says.

They're almost certain to invade, sooner or later. They get to receive the admonition from the Pope, then you steam in with your recently withdrawn troops, plus some backup, lift the siege, then press on, into their lands, the following year. See who gets excomm'ed for it... }:-)


With regard to the chronological order in which alliances got formed, has anyone noticed whether the left-to-right sequence of alliance shields is *always* arranged alphabetically, or whether the sequence seems to vary from faction to faction?


Incidentally, if you happen to have Shogun installed,
*spoiler alert* click-drag-highlight to read the hidden text...
-----------
take a peek inside the Voices folder and notice the filenames of the emissary messages. You'll notice that for each message (alliance/ceasefire) there is a weak/equal/strong variant. Play each sound in turn and notice the subtle variation in the wording and even the tone of voice (timorous to haughty). When spaced out through a game lasting weeks, you might not have noticed these subtly differences until now and perhaps it's a slight cheat to even know about it.
------------

[The Unknown Guy]

In MTW if you take a peek at the alliance messages you get a debriefing on the type of AI which will say that and if it´s strong/eçual/weaker, too.

[macsen rufus]

I sometimes don't bother too much with diplomacy, but as someone mentioned above, in VI I usually ally to the Vikings asap and they usually honour that throughout the game. It always seems like a lottery though as to who will drop and who will honour an alliance when a war breaks out. Generally though, I will honour alliances, and if an ally's enemy makes an approach I will refuse it.

Some of the things mentioned above there are quite simple explanations for: the whole war/marry a princess/ceasfire/war cycle, usually arises because the emissary tapping your princess has walked halfway across Europe with the ring to catch up with her, and during the journey his faction has had an opportunity to attack you. No-one tells the emissary, so he still pops the question, even though the faction has no "intention" of making a ceasefire as the decision to fight was newer than the decision to marry.

Regarding STW - the one rule I have worked out is that when your enemy proposes a ceasefire, they will attack the next turn! s!

The only real benefits to MTW alliances is the chance to fight battles alongside allies (I was once part of a three-on-one attack, fortunately the largest partner) which was a glorious bloodbath. I have had loads of battles with allies along, but I really wish there was a way to guarantee the allies would come along. The closest you can get is save the game, end the turn, and then reload to join in any attacks your allies make

There have been a few cases where the AI has done really strange things - like the Spanish once joined one of my invasions. I had a well-balanced army suited to take out the defenders, the Spanish sent .... err, their KING. On his own, and we all know what impetuous Royal Knights are like. His attack was so dumb it was almost French (C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre!) His Highness got arbalested to within an inch of his life and fled screaming before I'd got my army formed up and halfway across the map. At least by the time I went to war with the Spanish, they had a "not so bold" king

[caravel]

It might be unfair to say this (and I apologise if this is a re-hash of a debate from yesteryear) but, to a great extent, MTW is really "Shogun set in Europe" - give or take the extras, like crusades/Jihads, ships and so on.

This is very true. MTW works in much the same way with the aggression factor toned down somewhat, though occasionally it shows it's true colours.

I believe the alliances are lined up in the same order, alphabetically I think, so there's no indication of whom was allied with whom first.

The alliance messages differ in MTW in the wording on the alliance parchments. If you're a weak faction they're haughty, if you're strong they're haughty.

@["ceasefire_rejected2_txt_xzy"]
@{"He says that the time is not yet right for such a step, but claims that he neither offers further insult nor plans aggressive action against you. "}
@{"He regrets that he cannot make such a broad commitment at this time."}
@{"He requires further proof of your good intentions. The withdrawal of troops along our borders would provide him with this reassurance. "}
@{"He is not ready to take such a step at this time, but will consider the idea again very soon. "}
@{"He says that if you were to make war against some of his troublesome neighbours he would rethink his position on the proposal. "}
@{"He asks that we prove our sincerity in this matter by making war aggressively against our mutual enemies. Then he would reconsider. "}
@{"He suggests that we attack our mutual enemies to demonstrate our true worth as formal allies. "}
@{"He says that he is not yet ready to choose sides in this conflict, but that that the time may soon come when he does so. "}
@{"I was politely, but firmly, refused an audience. "}
@{"I was unable to obtain an audience with him. "}
@{"He listened to all my arguments, but gave no reason for his final rejection of the offer. "}
@{"He was careful not to imply that we were in any way unworthy of respect. "}
@{"His aides informed me that he was too busy to see me in person, but that his answer was 'no' in every particular. "}
@{"He said that he could see no advantage to him in a ceasefire at this time. "}
@{"He said that a ceasefire was not a decision to be made on a whim, and that long and careful consideration of the matter was required. "}
@{"It was only his good mood that day that allowed me to leave with my body and soul still together. "}

I have wondered how the AI decided which one of these to use. At times it seemed random and may well be to an extent. It is possible that it makes a check on how long it has been since any battle occurred? With alliance rejections it probably has something to do with your empires world ranking.

[Deus ret.]

I have wondered how the AI decided which one of these to use.

As far as I can tell they're pretty random. Say I'm the Polish and attack on the Teutonic Order who has attacked the Lithuanians last turn. Naturally, I want to ally with the Lits against those Germans, but their king tells me something along the lines of "to prove your intentions you should wage war on our common enemies"....what the heck does he think I'm doing at that very moment? It doesn't matter for this kind of response if there was another war involved.
That the content of these refusals/acceptances doesn't count for much is further illustrated by suggestions like a recommendation to reduce the amount of troops along the border. well, maybe it's a dirty trick by the AI to pave the way for the invasion they're actually aiming for, but in any case reducing border garrisons is the way of getting the AI to attack.

I think it's utterly random, but if ones shuts his eyes and takes into account the mechanisms of (real) diplomatic deceit then it's quite possible to imagine living in a world where you can't trust even your ally's word and where your worst enemy may suddenly approach you in terms of friendship for purely tactical reasons - wait, isn't that the REAL world? Nothing is predictable and few is sensible - in this regard at least the designers have done a good implementing realism into MTW IMHO. Hooray!

[gunslinger]

I have wondered how the AI decided which one of these to use. At times it seemed random and may well be to an extent. It is possible that it makes a check on how long it has been since any battle occurred? With alliance rejections it probably has something to do with your empires world ranking.

I have definitely noticed that if I repeatedly pester a faction leader for an alliance (usually Da Pope) his rejections of my offer will go steadily from benign to threatening. He may start off with "These matters must not be taken too lightly," but by the third or fourth try my emmissary will feel lucky to escape with his life.

[Ironside]

Only thing I've noticed with alliances is that attacking an ally will cost 1 influence and that the factions are extremly unlikely to ally with you if you're at war with one of thier allies. Making peace or wiping out that faction you're war with makes you able to ally yourself with that faction's former allies.